The Culture War of Words

Yes, I guess if I were about to kill another human being, I wouldn't take the decision "lightly" either. I guess we should give everyone a pat on the back for reeeaaally thinking it through.

What's crazy is that most people opposed to abortion for any reason are just as opposed to the very things that would prevent many abortions -- sex education and inexpensive, effective birth control made widely available to young people.

If you want to prevent abortions, support Planned Parenthood.

I'm glad to read about the Pregnant Women Support Act. Hopefully this will cause all of those who think that pro-lifers are cold-hearted religious nutcases escaping from the psych ward who don't want to support the mother and child financially to SHUT UP!! And, yes, we should reduce the demand AND supply.

Regarding planning for the birth of unwanted children and how to care for them as well as others in society, the answer is simple, even if the implementation is complex. To start, we need a change in mindset. And we're going to need to pay more taxes.

We must transition from a society in which the free market determines the value of everything (including how much a human being is worth) to a society which starts with the assumption that all human life is intrinsically valuable, and the market and everything else must be oriented to recognizing and fostering hat value.

The problem with some pro-lifers is that they can affirm that "human life is intrinsically valuable", but they can't get past the idea of the free market as America's "ultimate god". Some pro-choicers also fall into a similar trap. They take the market system we have as practically immutable, so they prefer just to dump the problem on pregnant women and call it their "free choice."

Any woman who feels *compelled* to have an abortion for economic or social reasons is not exercising full "freedom" of choice. She's being subjected to coercion by an unjust system. I believe the feminist Germaine Greer has written on this problem.

"Animals are afforded more protections from cruelty in many states than the unborn."

Animals that have been BORN have legal protections from cruelty. But certainly not the unborn animals. Been present for too many spays where the b*tch had a litter; didn't stop us.

This is a well written article. I believe that both sides of the abortion issue as stated in supply and demand is well crafted. I am pro-life and see conception beginning in the womb. I also believe in a woman's right to choose what she wants to do with her child. If in a place to counsel her, I would oppose the route of abortion but rather advocate carrying full-term and then possibly keeping the child or giving it up for adoption. The Bible provides us guidelines for sexual activity that transcend the distribution of condoms. Such activity is between married couples not unmarried couples.

While most of you argue whether abortions should or should not be allowed, whehn are all of you going to start talking and planning for all the unwanted children to be born, and whom will care for these children throughout their life from birth to death?

American society easily forgets about us orphans and there is no one here for US. We grow old alone, uncared for, no families, no one, always alone. no pill for this disease.

While all of you argue about whom is more right we; the unwanted orphans are suffering needlessly and wihtout any solution concern from any American quarter; while the rest of you argue over some social issue like the color shoes to wear.

This is not a political issue; although conservatives like to make this an issue; this is an issue of compassion and caring for your own young.

It is said some species eat their young. I belive American politicians are not far from that attitude.

Patrick a fifty-five year old orphan

Cthulhu3: "You damn right it is in a nation that reresents itself as the bulwark of human rights in the world."

[Yeah, and look how good we are at that... At least we can fix our mistakes, so that's something]

Anyhow, yes, your point that aborting a pregnancy does away with the fetus is factually accurate, and doing away with the rest of your argument does away with the rest of the problems you had in your initial post. If the fact that you are correct about that makes it impossible to cooperate, then you do have a sticking point there, don't you?

"Pro-choice people believe that there is no more intensely personal a decision than whether or not to have children, and, if the decision is to have children, when and how many."

Harrisburg1, you did not answer or respond to my point. Everyone knows that's what the pro-choice position says. It's what the pro-choice position requires that is so morally repugnant. I'll repeat it again slowly so you do not miss the point, that THE UNBORN HAVE NO--THAT'S NO--PROTECTION FROM HARM, VIOLENCE, MISTREATMENT UNDER THE LAW OF THIS LAND. Animals are afforded more protections from cruelty in many states than the unborn. Pro-choice cannot survive or stand as a legal position without this legal and moral assumption. Iis is disturbing? You damn right it is in a nation that reresents itself as the bulwark of human rights in the world.

"...East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet..." was never a more apt quote than in the abortion debate. Certainly Kipling did not intend it for this but it works.

As I see it, there is little room for compromise since the loudest voices on this debate are coming from the extremes. We will continue to swing back and forth politically with no real solution to the issue. In the "real" world where I live (crossing multiple states - from small towns to the big city), pro-choice people: understand the difficulty of the decision; recognize the horror of its effects; and do not gleefully encourage mothers to abort. Likewise, pro-life people are not ignoring the facts of life: adults and teens have unprotected sex; abstinence programs have limited efficacy; many teens and adults are ill equipped to be a mother or father; and adoption is a limited option that doesn't nearly place 100% of unwanted children.

If we put those "real" world people together and encouraged them to listen to all arguments, perhaps some common language would evolve. I won't hold my breath ... when the two sides come together in most venues, they are closed to the other side's arguments and cling to their ideological fallacies and moral certitude.

Thus, we may as well be prepared for the pendulum to swing back and forth until a more serious problem arises. Perhaps that will be a pandemic, mass starvation caused by food shortages, a lack of fresh water or a new crusade...who knows?

I wholly agree with Justice Ginsburg's recent and past statements that the USSC took on far too much in its 1973 ruling and we've been suffering for it ever since. This is a culture war that could have been fought legislatively and locally, without dragging the USSC into the battle.

Truth is, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the situation would immediately return to the status quo ante, which is that in many if not most states abortion would remain legal, and it would be up to pro- and anti-abortion groups to fight it out in the states.

This is an outcome more in line with how abortion came to be legalized in Europe. It was a consensus which emerged and was given expression by the national legislatures. That is a more credible process.

"The left wants to reduce demand for abortion; the right wants to reduce supply." Pro-lifer don't care about women or about children. It makes absolutely no sense not to consider the reasons why women would consider having an abortion. For the right-wingers, rape, incest, poverty, and ill health are not good enough reasons to consider terminating a pregnancy, but they also support politicians who are against social programs to help the poor and less fortunate. I really don't understand what they want... lots of poor and unequipped women to bring lots of children in the world that they can't take care of and don't want. Every child should be wanted.

TO Cthulhu3: You either can't or won't understand what being truly pro-choice means. It means opposing government, rather than the woman, making the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term. A government policy like China's which forces women to terminate pregancies against their will on a par with government policies that make abortion illegal or put arbitrary barriers to a woman being able to obtain a safe, legal abortion.

I have limited hope for this middle ground, though. To the extent that the dialogue is with people who oppose abortion of a confirmed pregnancy but support family planning that advises men and women on all of their options, not just abstinence and the rhythm method, I think some common ground can be found. However, if it involves anti-choice advocates who oppose all forms of so-called "artificial" contraception, especially those who believe that Plan B and the birth control pill somehow produce abortions (or as I've seen one Plan B advocate point out, those who believe that, having failed to prevent ovulation AND fertilization, the medication suddenly becomes effective only after conception), then I see very little possibility of finding common ground.

I am actively pro-choice and I've met very few girls and women seeking abortion who make the decision lightly. When someone is in a position that abortion even comes into consideration, they are generally facing a very bad range of options: (1) continue the pregnancy, and, absent miscarriage or still birth, keep the baby with all of the problems and pressures that made the woman consider abortion in the first place; (2) continue the pregnancy to term and put the baby up for adoption (try reading United Concerned Birth Parents for the emotional issues that come with that option); or (3) terminate the pregnancy. None of these options come with a do over.

Pro-choice people believe that there is no more intensely personal a decision than whether or not to have children, and, if the decision is to have children, when and how many.

The only way to reduce the number of abortions is to provide each and every woman with a safe, convienent, and reliable method of birth control and the knowledge to use it. Banning abortions is just a form of social control. It is anti-freedom.

If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. Stay out of other peoples business, and quit trying to run their lives for them.

@ Cthulhu3: It would be nice if it were that simple, but reductionist thought in service of a stipulative argument is not the same as a genuinely strong line of reasoning.

For one thing: does ANYONE actually like abortion? Speaking as just the biggest commie liberal in the whole world, I can tell you that our stance is a lot more like the problem with punishment-oriented drug laws: it's not that drugs are good, it's just that fighting them like they were an opposing army causes more harm by orders of magnitude than the original problem.

@ magellan1: How did you manage to be so awfully nasty without saying anything at all? A least you achieved that much, right?

Oh, hey: did you ever stop to wonder what YOU are bringing to this planet? I certainly hope this wasn’t it, you know?

Now for 8 years we've watched Christian Law Makers do everything from hire protitutes, rape, drugs, lie, steal, curse and one even selected DC young male pages to have sex with. Now we are to believe all this anger over a Woman's right to choose. Most single Mothers in America don't get child support. Rich Families send their daughters overseas for an abortion. Rich men send the girl or mistress overseas to have an abortion. So what's with the Churches point. The Church had no problem accepting Sen. Vitter back in as he gave the Church a 100 thousand dollar US grant. A Paster who worked with the Bush Administration as he attacked gay rights only to fine out he was gay himself. Yes with big bucks the Paster came back preaching the word while still doing his thing. American Christian Religious Leaders are an embarrassment to God and Jesus. As their words aren't put to action, just for a pay out to say what Political people want them to say. At lease the current President brings respect, honesty and Christian Values backs as he clearly stated a Woman has the right to choose and only her paster, family and herself should make that decision. Not some stuffy old perverts making the decision.

"54 percent of Americans support legal abortion." Oh yeah? Show 'em some video and we'll see how many support it.

No matter. There are too many people on this planet to be adequately supported anyway. I think you all should do the right thing and not inconvenience me with your wasteful existence.

"The left wants to reduce demand for abortion; the right wants to reduce supply."

Plus:

"But the new glue-based method now being tried may make the reversible vasectomy possible. In this approach, n-butyl cyanoacrylate, the compound that makes Krazy Glue, is used to block the tube and prevent the sperm travelling through. When a couple want to start a family, the glue plug in the tube is simply dissolved with the injection of another chemical."

A way to achieve it? I would imagine the reversability will make it more attractive than a conventional vasectomy, too.

Frankly, I have never understood the left's compromising position on this. Their premise is that abortion is a personal moral choice, so why would they think the government need take any action to limit it, reduce it, or otherwise? If it is just a fetus--or, rather, the left says that the individual gets to establish the moral and legal standing of the unborn, not the state--why would they want to reduce the demand for abortion? It would be like saying we want as a government to reduce the demand for tattoos, ear-piercings, eating pork, or any number of acts that the government has no position to regulate when it come to personal choice. Pro-choice in its underpinnings means that the unborn HAVE NO PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW period, end of story.

I say this not as supporter of the pro-choice position, but to reveal its essential moral incoherence. The more that the pro-choice stance is strengthened in law and in the culture--and the more it feigns a compromise position with the pro-life point of view--the more frightening and incoherent its shows itself to be.

"The fight seems to be about contraception and whether it would actually reduce the demand for abortion. The right is arguing that government family planning efforts won't be effective.
We could find out if the right is right by giving it a try." What, by doing nothing? i.e. abstinence education and "promise rings"? The right has had 8 years to rid the country of abortion, and it failed. Time to let the grown ups have a go at it.

"The conversation about "abortion reduction" then, is not really about abortion but about other hot-button issues: birth control, premarital sex, teen sex and sex education."

How true. The fringe right always sounds so disingenuous when they go on with shouts of "murder", "life at conception", blah blah blah. The REAL issue is sex, or rather, their uncomfortableness with the thought of people having sex. If there were a chance that they could get over their puritanical prudishness concerning the human body, then maybe they could see past their prayer books and educate their children to prevent further unwanted pregnancies.

I guess I'm on the left side. I say let's reduce demand. Reduce demand, and the number of abortions performed will reduce by default.

The left wants to reduce demand for abortion; the right wants to reduce supply.

It's a little more complicated than that. The Pregnant Women Support Act is actually an attempt to reduce demand, and it's supported by the Catholic Church.

The fight seems to be about contraception and whether it would actually reduce the demand for abortion. The right is arguing that government family planning efforts won't be effective.

We could find out if the right is right by giving it a try.

Paul Bradford Pro-Life Catholics for Choice